Talk:Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey

Old discussions

I live in New Jersey. What amazes me is that after the 2005 election, there was very little discussion about this topic.

Should "Background" be changed to past tense instead of present? For example, "The Governor of New Jersey is considered[1][2] one of the most powerful governorships in the nation, as it is currently the only state-wide (non-federal) elected office in the state" -> "The Governor of New Jersey WAS considered[1][2] one of the most powerful governorships in the nation, as it WAS the only state-wide (non-federal) elected office in the state" ? Andrewmin (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governor	Term	Political Affiliation	Notes
To be determined	2010-2014	To be determined

proposed table for list after election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.121.29 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Revisions JUL/AUG13

I have been revising the article for a good article nomination in the near future. A few numbered questions below for assistance if anyone happens by... --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• (1) Is there a free image of Christie and Guadagno on the campaign trail?
• (2) Does anyone know how to put the colour indicators for political party in the table?

GA1 Review (October-November 2013)

Since it's too long and interrupts commenting, transcluding the GA review here has been removed by the reviewer and I agree with that move. If you'd like to read the GA review done in October and November 2013, see: Talk:Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey/GA1.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Democrat vs. Democratic

A user has changed the usage of the adjective Democrat with Democratic despite the fact that the style guides used by NJ's major newspapers indicates the former, and northeastern dialects of American English (several spoken in NJ) prefer the usage of Democrat.(ref: Frederic Gomes Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall. eds, Dictionary of American Regional English: Volume 2 (1991) pp. 37-38, 1036).--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume you incorrectly edited the review (feel free to ping me in the future). Thanks to the user for their edits, however there is a longstanding consensus that the local variants of English should be used (WP:ENGVAR) and that the existing terminology (by which I mean, the original terminology) should be maintained (WP:RETAIN), so if there's any need for consensus to be found on this (minor and stylistic) matter, I support the use of 'democrat', as described above. Additionally, this article is an FA, and it is unusual for articles post-FA promotion to undergo these sort of English-variant changes once already promoted. --LT910001 (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• You are correct, I incorrectly added my comment to the end of the GA review by editing the section instead of starting a new section with the option above. the transcluded GA template tends to cause that problem. Many thanks for your observations regarding policies.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment: I am the user in question that made the first edit. I made the edit based on the typical reasoning that "Democrat" is a noun and should not be used as an adjective to modify a noun (in the edit's case, modifying "members" and "Richard Codey") in addition to its common use as an epithet. I know anecdotal evidence is bad but I'm not sure where the style guides of major New Jersey newspapers support your claim about its usage. In a quick search I did of the The Star-Ledger website, only one article came up with the use of "Democrat members" (out of 12 search items total, most of which are editorials, others are quotes from other organizations and forum posts) while much more relevant items came in under "Democratic members." A question to the OP (or to anyone with access to the book): Do you have an exact quote from DARE referencing the Northeastern dialects? Also, per WP:DIVIDEDUSE, the most common wording should be used. If "Democrat" is only used in the Northeast, but the rest of the country uses "Democratic" as an adjective (and I say rest of the country as this is generally an American article and should use American English), shouldn't the latter be used?

For the third line I edited, "Codey was the only acting governor during this time, as the 2003 legislative elections had returned a Democrat party majority to the state senate," Neutron is right in that that's not the name of the party that got a majority elected to the Legislature that year.

Why do I have a feeling this is gonna end up on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars? —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mr. Matté You have to consider that linguistically noun adjuncts function as adjectives, so some of the noun usage that would appear as an adjective is not. I'll review each usage individually tomorrow (since it's 0220 now)--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Official party organization statements like http://www.democrats.org/ and http://democrats.senate.gov/ consistently use "Democrat" as a noun and "Democratic" as an adjective. I seem to recall, some time around 2004, an allegation in liberal circles that Republican groups were attempting to promote the use of "Democrat" as an adjective, since it sounded less friendly and would subtly shift public opinion. I don't have a link, and I've no idea if it was true, but there is at least the perception that the phrase "the Democrat Party" is a very-subtly biased term. Regardless, it's not a term the Democratic Party uses for themselves. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly--when it's an adjective direct reference to the Party, it's "Democratic". However Democratic nominee vs. Democrat nominee, Democrat Senator, etc., is arguably a noun adjunct and the form "Democrat" entirely acceptable--and its the usage employed in the northeast. And calling someone a "Democratic" nominee or "Democratic" senator can be seen as misleading (and subtly indicating the opposition is non-democratic). Per WP:DIVIDEDUSE, which Mr. Matte points to, either way is acceptable--and I doubt there's much variance between the two and unlikely to support either as "primary" or "most common", per ENGVAR and RETAIN per LT910001, there's no need to be edit warring over "-ic" when either form is acceptable and the usage here is in keeping with real world usage. This is equivalent to arguing whether it's "traveling" or "travelling", "gray" or "grey" when both are equally acceptable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't (and still don't) have time today to really address this, but "Democrat members" and "Democrat Senate co-President..." are incorrect. It should be Democratic, not Democrat. And the idea that "Democrat" (in this sense) is used by some as an epithet against Democrats is not merely an allegation or something that some Democrats think; as I just discovered, Wikipedia even has an article about it: Democrat Party (epithet). I also don't think that a vague reference to a 23-year-old edition of the Dictionary of American Regional English is enough to establish that this is a correct current usage. Neutron (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There is also WP:NPOV to consider. The "average reader", aware that "Democrat members", "Democrat Senators", "Democrat policies", "Democrat wars", etc. have often been used in a derogatory sense, and unaware of the so-called "regional variation" in usage, could reasonably conclude that Wikipedia is taking a partisan position. As for the so-called "regional variation", nobody has shown any evidence that there is consistent usage of "Democrat" in this sense in the Northeast or in New Jersey in particular. I don't even see any evidence that it's a "majority usage." At best, the region is divided on this usage issue. If there were no NPOV issue to consider, I might agree with Colonel Henry, that either term is acceptable. However, there is a POV issue, as explained above. I'm changing it back, in the two instances (at last count) in which it is an issue. And if that goes, I think the "explanatory note" has to go too, because there will be nothing to explain. Neutron (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I just made the edits, but I did NOT simply change "Democrat" to "Democratic" in the two sentences in question. Instead, I edited those sentences to avoid the issue. I think that is a good compromise, for the moment. Of course, it does not avoid the possibility that the issue might come up in some other article. Hopefully we can agree that "writing around" the issue is sufficient, to allow this Featured Article to remain stable and free of POV issues. Neutron (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Very good, Solomonic edit.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and since you sent me one of those "thank you" thingies, you're welcome. I was actually pleasantly surprised when I realized that there appeared to be a fairly easy solution. Neutron (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And it is those very solutions that seem to elude us when we need them...may they happen more often. New year, new beginnings. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630013226/http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921055224/http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/Governors_of_New_Jersey/GINGO.pdf to http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/Governors_of_New_Jersey/GINGO.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20131112075220/http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_home/new_jersey_information/digital_collections/the_governors_of_new_jersey_1664_1974 to http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_home/new_jersey_information/digital_collections/the_governors_of_new_jersey_1664_1974
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184440/http://governors.rutgers.edu/njgov/NJN-PowerofNJGovernor.php to http://governors.rutgers.edu/njgov/NJN-PowerofNJGovernor.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226100545/http://whyy.org/cms/news/government-politics/2009/12/17/lt-gov-of-nj-also-named-sec-of-state/25790 to http://whyy.org/cms/news/government-politics/2009/12/17/lt-gov-of-nj-also-named-sec-of-state/25790

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020B

This older FA promotion does not meet the FA criteria. There is significant uncited text. There's also some balance issues - the 2009 election is given more space than the 2013, 2017, and 2021 ones combined. Also some sourcing issues - I've flagged a small failed verification, and there's issues like and remained in office until he retired from the state senate on January 8, 2002 being sourced to a source dated January 7 - it obviously can't support that something happened after it was published. Or Richard Codey served again as acting governor from November 15, 2004 to January 17, 2006 - Source is from 2004! How can it support something from 2006? In the interim period before the next election in 2009, any vacancy in the office of governor after January 17, 2006 would be filled first by the senate president, followed by the speaker of the general assembly, who would vacate their legislative seat upon assuming the governor's office should also be sourced to a secondary source, rather than interpretation of the state constitution. These are only a sampling, there are significant sourcing issues here. Hog Farm _Talk 19:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)